Claims Tribunal procedure must follow the Motor Vehicles Rules; jurisdictional notifications cannot displace mandatory trial requirements.

A Claims Tribunal must follow the procedure prescribed by the governing Motor Vehicles Rules for inquiry and trial, including recording evidence where required, and cannot dispose of claims exceeding the relevant monetary limit solely on affidavit evidence under Order XIX CPC. Notifications issued under Section 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 were confined to pecuniary jurisdiction and could not override the procedural mandate in Rules 300, 310 and 311. The awards were set aside and the matters remanded for fresh disposal in accordance with the prescribed trial procedure.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Claims Tribunal could decide compensation claims exceeding Rs. 25,000 by resorting to affidavit evidence under Order XIX of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; (ii) Whether the notifications issued under Section 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 could override the procedural requirements contained in Rules 300, 310 and 311 of the Bombay Motor Vehicles Rules, 1959.

Issue (i): Whether the Claims Tribunal could decide compensation claims exceeding Rs. 25,000 by resorting to affidavit evidence under Order XIX of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Analysis: Rule 300 required the Tribunal, after framing issues, to record the evidence each party desired to produce. Rule 310 made the procedure of the Code of Civil Procedure applicable where the Rules were silent or insufficient. Rule 311 permitted disposal on affidavits only in claims not exceeding the monetary limits stated therein. On that scheme, a claim exceeding Rs. 25,000 had to be tried by recording evidence and not merely on affidavits.

Conclusion: The Tribunal could not decide claims exceeding Rs. 25,000 solely on affidavits.

Issue (ii): Whether the notifications issued under Section 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 could override the procedural requirements contained in Rules 300, 310 and 311 of the Bombay Motor Vehicles Rules, 1959.

Analysis: The notifications issued under Section 110 regulated only the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Main and Auxiliary Tribunals. They did not confer rule-making power and could not alter the procedure prescribed by the Rules for inquiry and trial. The procedural field remained governed by the Rules made under the statutory rule-making power, and not by jurisdictional notifications issued under Section 110.

Conclusion: The notifications did not override the procedural mandate of the Rules, and the Tribunal was bound to follow the procedure for trial of suits under the Rules.

Final Conclusion: The awards were set aside and the matters were remanded for fresh disposal in accordance with law by following the prescribed trial procedure.

Ratio Decidendi: A Claims Tribunal must follow the procedure prescribed by the Rules governing inquiry and trial, and jurisdictional notifications cannot alter that procedure; affidavit-based disposal is impermissible where the Rules require recording of evidence.

---